[Ellie]

I'm avidly pro-RKBA, and can handle a firearm safely, but am not as well versed as most of you, and I'd like your advice in discussing RKBA.

I try to regularly voice my opinions about firearms in a reasonable manner, and one that people who disagree with me can understand. Rather than falling back on my a priori belief that to ban firearms is immoral and unconstitutional, I try to give reasoned arguments beyond that.

So, in a discussion with a pro-gun-control friend, I managed to get across to her the self-defense argument. She agrees with me that "simple guns for self-defense" are ok, but not semi-autos "which are only used to kill and maim large groups." When I pointed out that they are handy for defense from groups of people, she stated her belief that this is rare and the harm to society outweighs any good.

My sense is that a) she thinks that semi-auto means "machine gun" and b) that there probably are other good arguments for semi-auto (and full auto) firearms to be legal (other than the fact that they are fun to shoot, of course, which won't hold water) : )

So, given that this is a dear friend who held my hand while I cried over the death of my newborn son, and not somebody who I wish to cream, how would you answer her?

[SDC]

I think you need to start from the education standpoint; ask her what it is that makes a semi-auto different from any other firearm, and if she knows how they operate. From there, you can go on to the fact that semi-autos have been available to the civilian population for at least a full CENTURY now, and the only reason the gun control lobby is making any sort of deal over them is because they realize that most people don't know any more about firearms than they know about deep-sea diving, or speaking Nepalese (but the antis realize this, and can always use that lack of knowledge).
Show her something like a Ruger Mini-14, which is a gas-operated, semi-automatic rifle in 223 remington, and ask her if she knows what it is and how it operates. Then, show her a Colt AR-15, which is ALSO a gas-operated semi-automatic rifle in 223 Remington. If she's like many people, she'll say that the Mini-14 is "OK, because it looks normal", but that the AR-15 is one of those "Bad guns that should be banned because they look mean", and then ask her to look at her argument while substituting OTHER things for those guns. Should cars that "look fast", or that are painted red or black, be banned because they "look fast"? Of course not, and she should be able to recognize that; yet, that is EXACTLY what she's saying when it comes to firearms. You could also ask her to watch this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0 ), from a police officer who KNOWS there's no reason to treat them any differently. Probably the best antidote for this sort of nonsense is to take them shooting (hopefully, with someone who has a number of these firearms, and can show her exactly how to use them properly and safely; afterwards, ask her if the "evil mind control rays" have started to affect her yet. :-)

[dralarms]

Take the firearm, unload it, place the firearm on the table, place the bullets and mag. beside it and tell this person that if that firearm is evil then it will load it'self and shoot someone without any help from you or anyone else.

This next part is very important. Watch the firearm very closely since we know they are evil it won't take long before it attempts to load it'self and kill someone.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[igpoobah]

Take



Her




Shooting.

[Alphazulu6]

Well... Hard arguement to prove or disprove... or argue for that matter as evil is an emotional tag associated with whatever the individual feels the stimulus is. My Glock 23 / 1911 / etc semi-auto was made for one thing only such as any para-military, military, or service weapon.

John Moses Browning made the modern day firearm to fight wars with during the turn of the past century. So anyone that would do their research could easily prove 100% without a doubt that they were made to close with and destroy the enemy in combat :D Basically I am saying my Kel-Tec/Glock/Wilson Combat/ Berreta/ etc is not my Anschutz 1913 Supermatch .22 Olympic competition paper puncher.

So not hiding from that fact we can say that there are alot of competitions that require the 1911 style, combat pistol, or speed shooting competitions that require an Automatic. These are becoming rarer these days but they are still shot quite often. Camp Perry and PA matches use service rifles that are all Semi-Automatic. :D (In addition to smallbore matches which are single-shot bolt action).

So really I think the EVIL part is completely emotional and personal. If that individual feels that killing ANYTHING is bad (such as my wife who doesnt even like killing gnats) then really its a futile point to prove a semi-auto or any automatic anything is different than what it is.. a great instrument for hunting, sportshooting, plinking, defense, or collecting. Maybe take her to the range and set up some bowling pings for an easy shoot and let her see how fun it is... That just might swing it. Good Luck! :D

[Carl N. Brown]

When I started shooting a Marlin 60 when I was fifteen,
one thing I noticed with a semi-auto action was that
I could devote attention to 1) the trigger and 2) the safety
and not be distracted by manually operating the action
between shots.

Keep It Simple and Safe is a good thing.

I will bet that your friend hears "semi-auto" but sees
a full auto Uzi or AK47 blazing away in her mind's eye.
Show her that semiauto does not mean military only.
Then show her that military guns are legitimate curios
and relics. Then the obvious: defending yourself with
a lethal weapon--baseball bat to double shotgun to
semi-automatic rifle--is justified by your right to live
not by the type of weapon you defend your life with.

[skinnyguy]

She did admit to this, which is WAY good;So, in a discussion with a pro-gun-control friend, I managed to get across to her the self-defense argument. She agrees with me that "simple guns for self-defense" are ok, but not semi-autos "which are only used to kill and maim large groups." In a self-defense situation, there are going to be times when immediate follow-up shots will be critical, a miss, off-target shot, drugged-up SOB that needs more convincing that his victim will NOT be made a statistic, mulitiple assailants. These are the times when semi-auto is your best friend in the world.

Sounds to me like you are working an anti to the real world workings, thank you, and keep it up. You're doing a great job!

[Creature]

Take



Her




Shooting.

+1 what igpoobah said.

Ask her (without pressuring her) to go with you the next time you go to the range, which should be THIS WEEK!

TRY to go during a less crowded time though....as many anti-soon-to-be-newbies can be rather intimidated by crowds of shooters.

PS: my DEEPEST condolences and sympathy for the loss of your son. I know your pain...

[cambeul41]

Might we assume that her car has a manual transmission? For her to be consistent, it must have, must it not?

[Creature]

Might we assume that her car has a manual transmission? For her to be consistent, it must have, must it not?

Huh! Very clever! :)

[yhtomit]

There's an 8- or 10-minute video that shows a California (Sherrif? Deputy? I hope someone can help out here) who demonstrates at the firing range the similarity between a Mini-14 in wooden furniture (which looks arguably fairly innocent to those who think that 'simple' guns are OK) and one dressed up to look eeeevil with black furniture, folding stock, big magazine, etc.

I don't have a link handy, but perhaps someone else can point to it.

EDIT: While I was slowly typing, SDC beat me to it -- that's the video I was thinking of, linked from his post above.

IIRC, he also demonstrates and explains the diff. between semi-auto and full-auto.

I have a quibble with the choice of the Mini-14 as the "innocent" one, because to me, it looks like the Mini-Garand it's supposed to be :) A semi-auto hunting rifle with Monte Carlo stock, "elegant" scrollwork (bleeaaccgh!), and a long barrel would be a better example; the Mini-14 is chosen I think mostly because the change (from "normal" to "scary") can be done so quickly, right before your eyes, so the viewer knows that the differences in function are nil, only the aesthetics have changed.

I know what you mean about not wanting to "cream" someone, though -- most people I know are still stuck in the bog of cultivated fear when it comes to guns. The *best* way I think might be to take your friend shooting with a Ruger 22/45 or similar .22LR autopistol.

timothy

[geekWithA.45]

The autoloading design goes back 100 years.

They were invented to address well known shortcomings of designs older than that.


They are entirely ordinary and pedestrian, and were completely uncontroversial until the mid/late 80's, when they where singled out by political organizations for political purposes, which is pretty well documented.

Anything negative your friends "knows" about autoloaders descends directly from those events, which are still echoing today.

So, to wind it all up:

"How would you explain to somebody why semi-autos aren't evil?"

"They never where evil until recently designated as such for political reasons, and how does it feel to be a chump?"

[Ellie]

Thanks - good ideas here.

I will pass the link to the video along.

Thanks for helping me to think through the emotional logic of the 'mean looking' firearm. I'm married to ArmedBear and I'm so used to his collection of various and sundry hunks of metal that they don't look mean to me any longer. I just see them as tools.

And yeah, we have a Ruger .22 and it's about as scary to look at and shoot as a staple gun . . .

[BAT1]

Pull up : Politically Corrected Glossary of Terms. That is a homeland security pistol, don't you want the right to be secure? Why we women have right not to be a victim. We just have to have better talking skills than the propaganda machine. Slowly .....:D

[Ellie]

That was an excellent video! Very straightforward and unemotional. And the man looked and behaved like a nice dad, not, you know Ted Nugent (who I love, but is a little, uh, agro to pass along to antis).

[Juna]

To the OP: Great topic! I know I struggle with this myself sometimes. All of the above are great suggestions. I find analogies and examples of other, non-gun situations to be more helpful since most people who are anti-gun are totally ignorant with respect to firearms and cannot relate to them. If you start spouting off about technical firearms jargon, you'll lose them and they'll label you an "extremist gun nut'.

There's always the argument that it's a Constitutional right. For example, one could argue that swear words and profanity have no useful purpose and that no good comes of their use. So why shouldn't we make it a crime to use those words? After all, we could still use all the other words, and profane words were only coined to do damage, hurt feelings, and offend people.

So why not ban profanity? Well, because free speech protects all speech--speech that does good and speech that does harm. Benjamin Franklin said that those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I couldn't agree more. Do you make right-infringing rules for the 0.1% of society who commit crimes, or do you make them for the 99.9% of people who obey the law?

I always like the car analogy, too. Should we ban sports cars? No one can drive 140 mph anywhere in the U.S., anyway, so why should they even be allowed to be bought? They're just designed to be driven over the speed limit, which is dangerous. So if you go out and buy a Ferrari, then you're going to be out driving 140 mph on the expressway before you know it, right? The fact that you can means you will, right?

Wrong. You control how fast you drive and what you use your car for (drunk driving, etc.). If you want a Ferrari and can afford one, then why shouldn't you be able to have one? The semi-auto being used to kill as many people as possible analogy is like saying that Ferraris were designed for drunk driving. It's taking a HUGE leap between two things in society--guns and violence. Yet we don't draw an association between car subtypes and drunk driving. Red sports cars are no more able to kill someone than a Chevette or SmartCar. Do you think the pedestrian who gets run over by a Honda Civic going 50 mph cares that it wasn't a Corvette going 50 mph?

By that token, if someone is shot with a .22 LR bullet out of a bolt action rifle or a .22 LR bullet out of a Ruger 10/22, do you think they know the difference or care? What about the .50 BMG out of a semi-auto Barrett or it's bolt-action counterpart? Does it make a difference? Is the rate of fire what kills someone, or is it the bullet flying out of the muzzle that's aimed at them? Once someone has made the decision to kill someone (making them a seriously disturbed individual), they will find a way to do it one way or another--semi-auto, knife, baseball bat, or otherwise.

Then there's the argument that criminals disobey the law, so how will new laws stop them from doing so? It will clearly only disarm the law-abiding citizens (i.e. the victims). If criminals disobey the laws against violence and murder, why would they obey a firearm regulation? Moreover, even if all guns were banned tomorrow, criminals would still have them.

Look at drugs in the schools. Show me a high school that doesn't have drugs in it or at least a few kids who attend that school using them. How could they have gotten them? It's not like alcohol where they can just pay someone older to buy for them. Drugs are illegal everywhere and to everyone! So how could they possibly have permeated our society so easily?

It's the same reason Prohibition was unsuccessful at ridding the nation of alcohol. You cannot legislate morality, and banning inanimate objects will never substitute for personal responsibility. Banning and limiting things merely makes them profitable to criminals via laws of supply and demand.

As far as attack from multiple people being unlikely, so is needing life insurance or having your house burn down, yet you still keep a fire extinguisher and get a life insurance policy. Plus, why should you not be able to optimize your odds with a semi-auto in a life threatening situation? Is your life worth jeopardizing b/c of what Mr. Cho did at Virginia Tech? Are the two related at all? I don't think so. Who is the government to tell us how we can and can't defend our loved ones and ourselves when our lives are in danger? What if you were only allowed to have a life insurance policy for $10,000? Maybe you have a lot of debt, and that won't make a dent in it for your family. But the government tells you you're not likely to die, anyway, so it's limiting your policy to $10,000. Or maybe you're only allowed one smoke detector or fire extinguisher in your home. What if you have a 5000 sq ft home?

The list goes on and on. Stay calm in your discussion, as hard as that may be. I get so irritated by the paucity of logic in the anti-gun arguments sometimes that it can be hard to not get a little annoyed or fired up. Good luck in converting her or making her a little more well informed. Lastly--take her shooting! That may also help dispel some myths.

[obxned]

She has been so brain-washed (or brain damaged) by listening to idiots that there may be no hope of educating her.

How a tool operates is not really relevant: how it is used is.

[cambeul41]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8352846089329050376&q=speed+revolver&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

If the link doesn't work, I found the clip by googling "speed revolver."

[JohnL2]

Anybody who thinks an inanimate object is inherently good or evil has deeper issues than you can contend with.
Remain objective from their neurosis for your own sake sir.

[Ellie]

Well, turns out that my friend did not know the difference between full auto and semi-auto, so a short explanation and that video worked. Next, I will work on getting her to a range . . .

And, yes, I agree that it is neurotic to believe that an inanimate object is evil, approximately half of our country has that neurosis. I used to believe that I could do without lefties, but when our baby died, I discovered that I need people and sometimes have to look past some problems to get to what's good about them. I just do my best to witness a more objective reality.

[Sistema1927]

Here is an additional argument to use:

Many semi-auto designs minimize felt recoil, so as to allow the infirm and disabled to exercise their right to self-defense. They also allow follow-up shots without manual intervention on the part of the shooter, also allowing the weak who would otherwise be victims to have a fighting chance against evil attackers.

[geekWithA.45]

Well, turns out that my friend did not know the difference between full auto and semi-auto,


Capitalizing on this was an explicit, documented intention of those who demonized autoloaders for political purposes.


And in belaboring the difference, it puts us in the unfortunate position of giving the appearance of conceding fully automatic arms in civilian hands.

[JohnL2]

I thought civilians could obtain fully-automatic firearms. They just have to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to obtain the proper licenses.

[Samuraigg]

Well, turns out that my friend did not know the difference between full auto and semi-auto

I have a feeling this applies to many people who support an assault weapons ban. They *think* the law bans fully automatic military hardware, when in reality it only bans semi automatic guns based on whether or not they look scary.

Its sad that people with such ignorance could be the ones supporting and holding up these gun laws.

[Ellie]

I agree with you, Geek (about the political nature of the misguided belief and the unfortunate concession). But anyhow, it's some small progress. I'll take my small progresses where I can get them.

[Oana]

Since you've explained the difference between a semi-auto and an auto, she might be interested in this video, which illustrates the difference between a semi-auto and an auto, and how a semi-auto can be changed to look like an "evil assault rifle" with a few simple changes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

[illspirit]

How about having your friend watch the first five seconds of the intro to The Rifleman program from the '50s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9r_XEfcLtw

Then point out to her that Chuck Conners just "spray fired" a dozen rounds "from the hip" with a lever-action rifle design that's about 140 years old. A feat which, according to the Brady bunch, is somehow only possible with a pistol grip on an "assault weapon" with a "high capacity" magazine.

[Juna]

I like that lever action video. Good counter the antis.

And in belaboring the difference, it puts us in the unfortunate position of giving the appearance of conceding fully automatic arms in civilian hands.

Good point. I agree. The difference is irrelevant to our IIA RKBA.

I thought civilians could obtain fully-automatic firearms. They just have to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to obtain the proper licenses.

Well, only in certain states, and yes, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp and jump through a lot of hoops. Ever checked the price of any automatic firearm? Some are far more than most cars I've owned (due to limited supply b/c you can only own automatic weapons built and sold over 20 years ago). That's what I call infringement.

It makes it so that lower income people cannot have access to those firearms, which is an elitist attempt at a back door ban. It's like proposing an ammunition tax so high that no one can afford to shoot and then arguing that you still can legally shoot. Banning is not the only form of infringement of our IIA rights.

[armedandsafe]

I have gone through this several times. The most effective tactic I have used follows:

I place a cleared and checked semi (Ruger P85) and a cleared and checked revolver (Dan Wesson .357) on the table. I then ask the person what happens if I load the revolver and pull the trigger.

It fires.

What happens if I pull the trigger again?

It fires.

And again?

It fires.

Then I pick up the semi and go through the same litany.

What happens if I load the semi and pull the trigger?

It fires.

What happens if I pull the trigger again?

It fires.

And again?

It fires. :scrutiny:

The light dawns. :D

Pops

[ranger335v]

Ask if she thinks auto transmissions in cars should be banned because they make it to easy for careless fools to drive and for crooks to steal them?

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge and that can be fixed, it seems you are going the right way with her. Unfortunately, stupidity is the inability to learn and that can't be fixed. Our news and entertainment media, public education system and many politicians are simply stupid.

[eric.cartman]

Profesional Help: http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=212:1603

:evil:

[learn2shoot]

Profesional Help: http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/p...?SDID=212:1603



Is that site for real or is it a spoof?

[General Geoff]

A gun has no will of its own, and thus cannot be evil.

It's that simple.

[Carl N. Brown]

A few years ago we had a drug-related ambush and murder in nearby
Bristol TN-VA. The killers used two H&R single-shot, single barrel hinge
action shotguns.

Last month I partcipated in Modern Military and Vintage Military matches.
I shot an AK47 rifle, CZ52 pistol, M1A1 carbine, M1911A1 pistol at
cardboard. All semi-auto military firearms, and nobody died.

A successful semi-auto ban might (if heck froze over) have kept me
from having semi-autos at a peaceful (noisy but peaceful) sporting
event.

A successful semi-auto ban would not have kept the murderers from
killing.

Over a period of about two years a mister Fields committed three of
the last nine murders in my home town. He stabbed a woman at the
boardinghouse and was caught later after beating two men to death
with a baseball bat.

A means is not an actor and a means is not a motive. The woman was
not killed by a knife, but with a knife by a man; the two men were not
killed by a baseball bat, but with a baseball bat by a man.

Guns are not evil and do not do evil things; only people are capable of evil.
And people can do evil with or without guns.

[benEzra]

Point out that the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip is a semiauto.

Semiautos ARE "ordinary defensive pistols/rifles/shotguns."

It sounds like your friend is confusing semiautos with automatic weapons.

An analogy may be helpful. An ordinary office stapler is semiautomatic (staples once and only once when pressed, will not staple again until released and pressed a second time). A sewing machine is automatic (lays down stitches continuously until you either let off the pedal or it runs out of thread).

Automatic firearms are tightly controlled by Federal law and have been for a long time, a fact she may not be aware of.

[yhtomit]

An analogy may be helpful. An ordinary office stapler is semiautomatic (staples once and only once when pressed, will not staple again until released and pressed a second time). A sewing machine is automatic (lays down stitches continuously until you either let off the pedal or it runs out of thread).

Hey, that's a great analogy, and one I've not run into before -- thanks.

Of course, the problem is that the conditioning runs deep :)

Guns are bad.
Guns are bad.
Why?
Guns are bad.

Reason is only useful as a tool of persuasion for people who choose to use it :)

timothy

[mgregg85]

You could try explaining the legal reasons why the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights and why semi-automatic weapons are necessary as a deterrent to possible tyranny. The weapons they used to fight the British utilized the same technology as the brown bess muskets the British were using. They intended for each and every citizen to legally be able to own something equivalent to the military's current firepower and capabilities. Today that would mean at least semi-automatic if not fully automatic.

I always like to use the comparison arguments with knives and cars as examples or you could explain that people were murdered before the invention of firearms and sadly human nature is the cause of such things, not the access to firearms.

[obxned]

On what did she base her judgement that a semi-auto is evil?

[10 Ring Tao]

Lol, only used to maim large groups? Looks like shes taken the brady talking points hook line and sinker.

Simply point out a wood stocked remington 7400, and then make sure she understands that that gun is identical in function to an AK.

[innerpiece]

so a bullet from a wheel gun is less effective that a bullet from an auto loader?!
less evil?!

the rate at which a gun is fired, is dictated by the threat.. forgive me if im ready for more than one thret.........
ip.

[Archangel]

I have gone through this several times. The most effective tactic I have used follows:

I place a cleared and checked semi (Ruger P85) and a cleared and checked revolver (Dan Wesson .357) on the table. I then ask the person what happens if I load the revolver and pull the trigger.

It fires.

What happens if I pull the trigger again?

It fires.

And again?

It fires.

Then I pick up the semi and go through the same litany.

What happens if I load the semi and pull the trigger?

It fires.

What happens if I pull the trigger again?

It fires.

And again?

It fires.

The light dawns.

Pops

Even better if you use a S&W 327 (8 shot .357 revolver) and a Colt Officer's Model (6 shot .45 auto). :evil:

[ozwyn]

Semi-automatic pistols can be argued as being more friendly to women and the elderly. The mechanism allowing for self-loading and springs inthe design tend to reduce felt recoil to the shooter.

This means that people who could not handle the recoil of heavy revolver loads often have a MUCH better time shooting equivalent effectiveness loads in semi-automatics.

In other words - its about giving everyone the right to use adequate defensive calibers, not just people accumosted to recoil.

Semi autos aren't evil, they are FAIR, even democratic in the manner they can bring larger caliber rounds to more people :)

that's my bs .02 argument. And Yes, take her to a range. The range solves a lot of issues with first hand experience. Have her shoot a wheelgun with full .357 and then shoot a 9mm. (some would argue the caliber differences are not fair, but in terms of actual usable choices they line up ok in terms of budget and popularity)

[Deanimator]

My sense is that a) she thinks that semi-auto means "machine gun" and b) that there probably are other good arguments for semi-auto (and full auto) firearms to be legal (other than the fact that they are fun to shoot, of course, which won't hold water) : )

That's almost always the case. Josh Sugerman (VPC?) made a conscious effort to confuse semi-automatic and full-auto firearms.

Nine times out of ten, when I have that conversation with someone, they have absolutely NO idea of the difference.

After I explain it, I always make sure that they know that they've been LIED to.

[Deanimator]

so a bullet from a wheel gun is less effective that a bullet from an auto loader?!
less evil?!

Just as a 7.62x39mm is more powerful than a .30-06.

Above all else, you must never forget that like Holocaust denial, gun control advocacy is based first and foremost on deceit and the exploitation of the ignorant.

[Carl N. Brown]

One of the antis showed the difference between a pre-ban
AK47 (with bayonet lug, muzzle brake, cleaning rod and
seperate pistol grip) and a AWB compliant AK47 (no bayonet
lug, no muzzle brake, no cleaning rod, and thumbhole stock)
by firing the pre-ban into a cinder block wall (making big holes)
then firing the compliant AK47 into the dirt while showing
the cinder blocks unscathed.

It was a totally bogus comparison, even CNN caught on to it,
but most non-gun people are easily duped by the fear-mongers.

(what has the presence of a cleaning rod under the barrel got
to do with lethality of weapon anyway, even though it is a
"military feature"?)

Josh Sugarman of National Coalition to Ban Handguns (now
Violence Policy Center) did remark that the general public
is easily duped about the semi-auto/machinegun confusion
and during the AWB even Fox News showed full-auto Uzis
blazing away in video while the voice-over talked about
banning semi-autos.

[Alex45ACP]

It's not only about defending yourself from common criminals. It's primarily about defending yourself from agents of the State. Show her pictures of Nazi concentration camps and explain to her that the point of keeping & bearing arms is so you don't end up like those people.

[Sonora Rebel]

Anyone who would assign a behaviorial trait to an inanimate mechanism has issues beyond my pay grade.

A round downrange is the result of a combination of deliberate mechanical actions initiated by a human being upon physical manipulation of such mechanical devices designed to expel projectiles either singularly or with varying cyclic rates of repitition at velocities known to be injurious/fatal to all life forms upon impact/penetration.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most everyone here is being silly.

The reason she thinks semi-autos are evil is probably because they are more effective at shooting innocent bystanders than are revolvers, bolt-action rifles or pump shotguns.

You'd have better luck explaining to her that semi-autos are effective self-defense weapons, for a number of reasons. Oleg Volk's website features a well-written counterargument here (http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html)

If you're lobbying on behalf of semi-automatic rifles, you could point out how rarely rifles of any sort are used in crime.

[def4pos8]

I agree: take her shooting. ;)

Show her a BUNCH of Oleg Volk's stuff!

Failing that, take a semantic clue from my ---- well, from my German friends. What we generally describe as a semi-auto they call a "self-loading" weapon, whether rifle, shotgun or handgun. A Class III automatic weapon is described by them as a "machine rifle" or "machine cannon".

I think the French snuck all this "automatic" verbiage (Fusil Automatique Legier) into our English when we weren't paying attention. :neener:

[Titan6]

This one is pretty easy. Make her prove they are evil. Since she can't this will be a long, frustrating, fruitless conversation. But she has to come to this realization on her own.

[MikeRussell]

It's simple common sense. Inanimate objects can't be evil. Only sentient beings can show evil intent or actions. Seeing as a semi-auto (or any other type of) firearm are NOT sentient beings and ARE inanimate objects, they cannot be evil.

[ConfuseUs]

Well now your friend knows the difference between semi and full auto but still thinks semiautomatic firearms are evil. She may think that based on the way the media jumps all over high profile shootings which usually involve semi-automatic guns.

Like some others have said, take her shooting with a variety of firearms, say a single shot .22, bolt .22, and semi .22. Show her how to load and fire each type. It is important that she do all loading/unloading herself. Start her off on the single shot for a 50 rd box of ammo. Then let her use the bolt for a 50 rd box of ammo. Then give her the semiauto .22 for the 3rd 50 rd box.

If she still is unable to appreciate why the semiauto is very good for saving her a lot of work, then she will never see the light. Or she has a very good work ethic.

[Agent 006 &7/8]

Another suggestion...

Show her a semi-auto pistol and a double action revolver.

Revolver - "simple" and "good":rolleyes:
Semi - "Complex" and "evil":rolleyes:

Then show her that each fires once with the pull of the trigger. So at the most basic level of operation the "good" revolver and the "evil" semi work the same except one brings a new cartridge into use mechanicly and the other with recoil. Show her that the "good" revolver can be shot just about as fast as the "evil" semi-auto.

Keep up the good work.

[JWarren]

Forgetting some of our traditional arguements, and forgetting the technicals of automatic verses semi-automatic firearms, we have to recognize that there are fundimental world-view incompatibilities within our culture. Sadly, no arguement we can make -- in most cases-- will be very effective in pursuading those of the anti-gun lobby or mindset.

Our arguements will fall on deaf ears because of the old axiom "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

Our arguements will fail because the anti-gun crowd BEGINS with the assumption that guns are bad, evil, immoral, whatever. When you begin with the desired conclusion as your hypothesis, you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.


In our society, it is comfortable to blame an ITEM rather than a PERSON. In our world of psychoanalysis and sensitivity, we are unwilling to squarely place blame for tragedies on the person who made a willful decision to commit an act. No. Those of the anti-gun camp NEED to have faith in humanity in order to live in thier comfortable bubble. To achieve this, they develop a thought process that asserts that the tradegy would not have occured if the perpetrator did not have the ABILITY to take that action. You see, ABILITY IS EQUATED TO ACTION in this mindset.

You can't wholely lay the blame on them for this irrationality. What passes for news media and crime shows in this country has basically made a lot of "intellectual" and "enlightened" people into idiots-- blathering idiots, at that.

I've referenced on a number of posts that-- because of my job-- I sit in front of a TV 8-9 hours a day with either CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, MSNBC, or Foxnews on EVERY working day. After years of this, I think I have a fairly good-- if unscientific-- idea of these stations.

News has become entertainment shows. There is less "News" in the news than there is editoralizing. Because of the "Real-Time" quality of news programs now, reporters and anchors are not only free to, but REQUIRED to make commentary on what is going on AS IT IS HAPPENING. They are free from the harrassment of fact-checkers and research. Instead, they have to spout that they BELIEVE as absolute facts. These facts are rarely accurate, and falsehoods are never specifically retracted. False statements that are caught are handled by just altering the statements in future reporting.

However, the damage is done since most of us grap a kernal of news here and there-- and cannot sit all day to wait for them to correct. Those falsehoods become fact once the NEWS said it.

In a desire to make news 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, requires discussion of issues CONSTANTLY. This usually goes the direction of over-reactive and purely idiotic debate in order to engage the audience.

Just this week, a 4 year-old had used a deactivated cell phone to dial 911 almost 300 times in a month. Surely enough, Fox news had a debate shortly after the discussion asking the question "Should deactivated cell phones be able to dial 911."


Earlier, the question was asked "Should the USA go to a London-style surviellence system?" after the London attempted bombing.

Every news story-- regardless of the topic-- becomes a discussion of radical alteration of culture and policy based upon rare and isolated events.


For the record, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are tied for first in this "editoralizing" quality of the news. CNBC is great in that they don't really care unless the stock market will react. Bloomberg TV is probably one of the best programs to obtain news from if you want the facts laid out for you with no spin or commentary. Just get used to the split screens and reading a ticker.


I sincerly hope people would not get their understanding of firearms from "cop" shows-- but you KNOW they are.

I can't watch an episode of the various incarnations of CSI or Law and Order without blatent falsehoods being present. They have a need to make everything more sinister than it is. This works on the "enlightened" anti-gun crowd.



Through this rambling diatribe, I have tried to decide how I would tie to the main point I wished to make. Because I'm still on my first cup of coffee and the fog of sleep hasn't lifted quite yet, I'll make a jerky transition much like teaching a kid to drive a standard transmission.


I often think that John Lennon has done more harm to our culture and society than anyone I can think of when he wrote 'Imagine." He held before us a vision of a Eutopian, Enlightened culture of mankind where violence and hatred does not exist. Benevolence and goodwill are the normal. Greed and anger do not exist.

Sure, its nice to think about. It is a flight of fantasy. Sadly, however, a certain percentage of our society see that ideal and those that have been shaped by Lennon's ideals as an obtainable goal. They so desire to live in such a world that they have lost thier understanding of society at its very core.

The "Enlightened" anti-gun crowd, for the most part, cannot be pursuaded because they do not want to focus their eyes squarely on the REAL problem.

It isn't firearms. It's people. Thier world-view does not have an answer for addressing the evil in people. Oh, I am not saying that PEOPLE as a whole are evil. Quite the contrary. Most people are decent and good folk. However, none can dispute that we have examples of truly evil people in our society and our history. It need not be a Ted Bundy or a Cho. Those have become icons of evil. We have examples in the mundane rapist sitting in San Quintin to look to. Sadly, evil is not as scarce as we would hope it to be.

This quality in some persons is what throws a monkey-wrench in the world view of the "Enlightened." The world they envision cannot fit an evil person into the equation and make it work. Grasping at straws, they seek to explain away the evil in terms of psychological condition and attempt to rehabilitate and "cure" the person. Hell, there is even a pill to CURE SHYNESS now.

In the interim of "curing" our society, we must minimalize the potential harm that those poor psychologically-destressed persons can do to themselves and others. To achieve that end, the TOOLS used must be eliminated. This goes back to the ability. In this thought-process, an assumptive hypothesis functions where a person would not CHOOSE a destructive course of action had they not had the ABILITY to do it. The reasoning is that a fanciful desire or thought may enter the mind, but because there is no real ability to follow through that desire or thought, it becomes a fleeting and forgotten thought without the ability to see it through. Again, the premise is that it was the ABILITY-- not the desire-- that was evil. You see how it is convientently the tool and not the person that bears the blame.


I will close this VERY long discourse with this thought:


It will always be something with the anti-gun visonaries.

Today, we must get rid of assault rifles and semi-automatics.

Next, it will be those bolt action "Sniper" rifles.

Later, it will be anything that is not single shot.

After that, they will want to ban anything that has rifling in the barrel because they are too accurate and easy to make a lethal shot.

We will all be using Liberator .45ACPs for firearms before they get around to just getting rid of ALL guns.



If you read all of this, I am astounded by your diligence and I thank you for that.



All the best!


-- John

[bumm]

I'm late to this thread, but the word semi-automatic has been intentionally demonized by the anti's. The best way to counteract this is by simply saying "a semi-automatic only shoots one time each time you pull the trigger."
If the situation is right, one can go on to discuss WHY the anti's have intentionally capitalized on the misunderstanding of this word, and go on to explain similar uses of words like "assault rifle." If the person is truly open to debate, and not a religiously committed gun banner, this can be a real eye opener for them.
Marty

[Blackbeard]

It's quite simple. The only times an anti hears about guns is when someone has been murdered. They only associate guns with murder, therefore guns are evil. They only hear about semi-autos in mass shootings, therefore semi-autos are only for mass murder. Never do they hear about guns (or specifically semi-autos) used to protect lives. They never hear of them being used for sport.

It's a simple question of media exposure. People are afraid to fly because they hear about every plane crash in the country. If they heard about every fatal car crash in the country every day, they'd never get in a car. Since we hear about every shooting in the country with more than two victims, they figure is has to be pretty common.

It's also the ratio of news stories about legitimate uses vs. illegitimate uses. It distorts their perception about the legitimacy of a tool. Almost every news story about guns involves someone getting shot. If baseball weren't on TV, and every story involving a bat involved someone being clubbed to death, they'd be calling for bat control. Since baseball is on TV, and many people play, their perception of the baseball bat is that it has legitimate uses but could be used for illegitimate purposes.

So, the solution is simple. Get as much publicity as possible for the legitimate uses of guns, and specifically semi-autos, and you will change people's perceptions.

[Oleg Volk]

Show then gas shut off valve on a FAL or Yugo SKS. Ask if the evil nature of the rifle, an inanimate object, changed with the flip of that valve.

[obxned]

More people are killed by cars with automatic transmissions than manual. Does that make automatic transmissions evil? Is owning a car with an automatic transmission a sign that you are planning on crashing and killing yourself and others?

[Blackbeard]

More people are killed by cars with automatic transmissions than manual. Does that make automatic transmissions evil? Is owning a car with an automatic transmission a sign that you are planning on crashing and killing yourself and others?

Acutally the vehicular comparison would be something like this:

A fully-automatic vehicle, such as a car, truck or SUV, keeps going as long as you step on the gas pedal and have gas in the tank. A semi-automatic vechicle would only turn the wheels once before you had to lift your foot and step on the gas again. A non-automatic vehicle is a bicycle.

[Two Cold Soakers]

I don't think I'd go into it.

I'd take time to explain the mechanical advantages and disadvantages of the action(s) but to try to dissipate an anthropomorphic attribute (evil) that has been placed on an inanimate object?

Obviously I'm dealing with a fool, zealot or baiter.

Soakers, suffers fools poorly.

[RNB65]

A semi-auto handgun is nothing but a couple of pounds of inanimate steel that's been molded into a particular shape. The only evil involved is the person holding it.

[W.E.G.]

There are all sorts of techincal arguments that can be made in support of the semi-auto as a preferred firearm design.

But, in the end, it comes down to this:
The Second Amendment is NOT about target-shooting or hunting.

I like to ask the anti's this question:
"Who defends your house?"
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from an anti.

[Crunker1337]

She thinks the purpose of semi-autos is hurt or kill large groups of people? Well, that would depend entirely on the operator, wouldn't it?

My point is, a decent person with a semi (or fully) automatic weapon is no threat. A person with the intent of killing large amounts of people... well, that's obviously another story.

A tool is only as evil as its user.

[CleverNickname]

I really dislike the "But it's not an evil machine gun!" argument for as to why semi-autos are OK.

[budder]

And in belaboring the difference, it puts us in the unfortunate position of giving the appearance of conceding fully automatic arms in civilian hands.
Good point. I agree. The difference is irrelevant to our IIA RKBA.
You agree that civilians shouldn't be allowed to have fully automatic weapons? Why is that? It doesn't seem to follow from the rest of your post.

[DevoBill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=

[lanternlad1]

Show her this and REALLY scare the socks off her...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

Jerry Miculek with a REVOLVER...

I like toying with antis... It's fun. :)

[SoCalShooter]

Well I would start with finding out what they already know, it is important to know what they know and how or where they came to that conclusion. Then start from there. This is why reading so many different sources is necessary.

[Xenia]

So, given that this is a dear friend who held my hand while I cried over the death of my newborn son, and not somebody who I wish to cream, how would you answer her?


First, I am so sorry for your loss.

Second, I understand where you are coming from. Only one of my friends is open minded about guns the rest are anti gun. My family is not into guns but not anti gun so this topic really doesn't come up with them. But I am not interested in insulting my friends and this subject does come up.

To tell you the truth.... when I describe the BG in my life and how afraid I am my friends admit they are a bit more gun friendly.

I have handled it this way. I explain that some of the problem is the changes in the drugs and how when someone is hyped up on them they are extra hard to stop and can be very violent. I show them some information I have found here or there on line about examples of someone needing to be shot several times to prevent them from trying to kill someone. I explain that what we see in movies is not accurate.... one shot well placed might cause someone to drop to the ground, but that many times that is not the case.

I also talk about what is a semi and a "regular gun" and how really there is not a huge difference. My gun holds 12 rounds (plus one in the chamber). A revolver might hold five or six bullets. But they both shoot fast. And with reloads someone who is fast with a revolver speed loader could shoot as much and as fast with either gun. However, I don't shoot revolvers very well. They don't fit my hand well.

In the end, my semi auto is not any more dangerous then a "regular gun".

Taking them shooting is a great idea. So far none of them will go with me but I have tried that. I also talk about how much fun I am having with my sport. I focus on how this is for self defense but that it is also a fun sport to target shoot. And a semi auto is very fun to shoot. (I am sure revolvers are too.... but so far I haven't shot one I liked.)

When people hear "auto's" even with the "semi" before it many times they think "machine gun". They hear lots of weird slogans and so forth by anti gun people but don't really know the truth. It might not work to explain, but it is worth a try.

[Patchbunny]

She agrees with me that "simple guns for self-defense" are ok, but not semi-autos "which are only used to kill and maim large groups."
Can she then agree to eliminate police ownership of semi-auto weapons? Or do patrol officers have the need to kill or maim large groups of people?

[busy_squirrel]

1. Semi-autos are not machine guns. When she knows that, she's be more open to listen to the rest.

2. Alot of people don't go down immediately after the first shot hits them. You might need repeat fire on the same aggressor to stop the attack.

That's probably all she needs to know. Use the self-defense issue of the second part since you already agree on that.

[xsquidgator]

Kudos to you on your efforts. I sympathize as I too have dear friends who've been there through times of loss, but who are unfortunately brain-washed antis. And, they are as ignorant of firearms and self-defense (I mean ignorant as in "uninformed", not as a perjorative) as your friend, if not more so. It irks me when I hear them repeat ridiculous arguments from the antis, especially along the lines of "nothing different would have happened at Virginia Tech if one of those students had had a gun". With anyone else they'd get a scalding blast of sarcasm, but I can't with these friends.

Keep doing what you're doing with your anti friend, and imo remember, baby steps. I agree with all of the arguments put forth by the people here as to exactly why it's ridiculous that semi-autos are evil. But someone like your friend who thinks she knows something like that isn't going to make a radical change of view quickly, it goes against human nature. Keep chipping one thing at a time. Especially important I think is to let her see that you have some of these evil things and you're not nuts/crazy/dangerous etc.

My wife used to roll her eyes at my gun hobby, and she got somewhat irritated when I started CCWing. I knew better than to argue, but I simply stuck quietly to my guns (I did make sure that every time an armed robbery or something bad happened in our area, several times a week, that the newspaper got left open to that story where she'd find it) and continued to carry, and to lock up my gun when I couldn't carry. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, but I know she noticed me carefully securing the piece and then checking it and reholstering when we'd come back) After a few months she on her own got rid of her predjudices, and got more tolerant of my new habits. A few more months, and she actually got her own CWP and her own CCW piece for the same reasons I did, and will even go to the range with me to stay proficient with her piece (and she is a better shot than I am). I'm thrilled of course, but I am convinced it was the slow and steady daily display of what I knew to be true that gradually convinced her. Had I tried to "reason" (argue?) with her, she'd have dug in her heels and nothing would have changed. Hopefully prolonged exposure to the truth (that armed, responsible people make everyone safer) being demonstrated, not discussion or argument, will help you in your quest with your friend.

[Pilgrim]

She agrees with me that "simple guns for self-defense" are ok, but not semi-autos "which are only used to kill and maim large groups." When I pointed out that they are handy for defense from groups of people, she stated her belief that this is rare and the harm to society outweighs any good.
I suppose with this thinking she will soon urge her chief of police and sheriff to arm their officers and deputies with revolvers.

Pilgrim

[PH/CIB]

Have them read any one of a number of good books about the American or the Russian Germ Warfare Programs. If I were Evil, Thank God I am not, and in charge of a Country I would not use nuclear weapons for fear of retaliation, and I would not use conventional weapons for the same reason. I would develop a deadly mutant virus or germ with a latent stage and of course a cure, and transport the virus or germ to a third world country or my enemy country whoever that would be letting it start there and be blamed, letting millions die if no one else developed a cure and even millions in my own country before the cure I had held in secret is amazingly discovered and brought to light and distributed just to throw off blame and making me a hero. I love firearms but they are primitive. There are a lot of things more important to worry about. Not saying it was not caused naturally, but read about the the millions who died of the so called Spanish Flu after WWI. Infrastructure is left intact, it's just the people who are gone.

[Kimber1911_06238]

Semi-auto's aren't evil? But what about EBR's? what will we call them without the evil part? BR's? That's not anywhere near as exciting...:neener: